Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 14570
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
V. Kameswar Rao, Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, JJ
SHIV BALAK GOSWAMI – Appellant
Versus
PANKAJ PURI – Respondent
FAO (COMM) 295/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Anjalika Sharma, Narender Goswami
For the Respondents: Satish Kumar, Rakesh Tiwari, Shiv Kumar Yadav
Objections to pecuniary jurisdiction must be raised at the earliest opportunity or before the settlement of issues per Section 21(2) CPC; otherwise, they cannot be raised at the final argument stage unless there is a consequent failure of justice.
Headnote:The appellant, a manufacturer of automobile lubricants, filed a suit for permanent injunction and passing off regarding the mark 'LAIMAX' under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. After the trial court granted an interim injunction and the parties concluded the recording of evidence, the District Judge, during final arguments, suo motu observed that the suit was undervalued and returned the plaint for lack of pecuniary jurisdiction. The primary issue was whether a plaint can be returned for lack of pecuniary jurisdiction at the stage of final arguments when no such objection was raised by the defendant earlier. The court held that under Section 21(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, objections to pecuniary jurisdiction must be raised at the earliest possible opportunity or before the settlement of issues. The court reasoned that allowing such objections at the final stage would lead to wasteful expenditure of judicial time and party resources, and such defects can be cured by waiver or acquiescence. The impugned order is hereby set aside, and the appeal is allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of trademark suit and the trial court's decision to return the plaint for lack of pecuniary jurisdiction. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 2. arguments regarding the necessity of granting an opportunity to amend the plaint for valuation. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 3. the statutory bar under section 21(2) cpc against raising pecuniary jurisdiction objections after the settlement of issues. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 4. judicial precedents establishing that pecuniary jurisdiction defects can be cured by waiver or acquiescence. (Para 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 5. application of section 21(2) cpc to prevent the return of a plaint at the final argument stage without failure of justice. (Para 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 6. setting aside the impugned order, restoring the interim injunction, and allowing the appellant to seek amendment. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J
(ORAL)
1. This is an appeal under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 [‘Act of 2015’], against the order dated 06.06.2025 in CS(COMM) 193/2020 [‘impugned order’], passed by the District Judge, Commercial Court, West District, Tis Hazari, returning the plaint for being presented before the Court of appropriate jurisdiction.
2. The brief factual matrix as set out in the appeal is as follows:
3. The Appellant is a manufacturer, wholesaler, retailer, and distributor of automobile oils and other lubricants. One of the marks under which the Appellant has been selling its products is LAIMAX and SUPER LAIMAX 4T. The Appellant has also filed Trademark applications bearing nos. 4387812 and 4386053 for the said marks, which are still pending registration. It is stated that the Appellant has built a substantial reputation and goodwill in the mark LAIMAX in view of its continuous use since 2009.
4. The Respondent is also engaged in the manufacturing and supplying of engine oils and lubricants under the mark LAIMAX. The Appellant learnt about the Respondent’s use of the mark LAIMAX in January 2020. From further search, the Appellant learnt that the Respondent has a registration for the mark LAIMAX bearing TM no. 3200528, dated 25.01.2018, and claiming use since 02.03.2016, which is much later than the Appellant’s adoption of the said mark.
5. The Appellant, to protect its mark LAIMAX, instituted a suit bearing no. CS(COMM) 193/2020, seeking relief of permanent injunction to restrain the Respondent from using the mark LAIMAX, passing off, rendition of accounts, and other ancillary reliefs.
6. The District Judge vide order dated 17.02.2021 passed an order granting an interim injunction in favour of the Appellant, restraining the Respondent from using the marks LAIMAX and SUPER LAIMAX 4T, subject to liquidation of old stock in view of the Respondent’s registration.
7. Thereafter, issues were framed, and both parties filed their list of witnesses and affidavits by way of evidence. After the conclusion of the recording of evidence of the plaintiff and the defendant, the matter was listed for final arguments on 09.05.2025.
8. That District Judge heard final arguments on 09.05.2025 and 21.05.2025. During the arguments, it was noticed by the said Court that the suit was not properly valued, hence the District Judge on 21.05.2025 framed a preliminary issue “whether the plaint of the present suit is liable to be returned for want of pecuniary jurisdiction”
9. Thereafter, the District Judge passed the impugned order returning the plaint on the ground that it lacked pecuniary jurisdiction, holding that the suit value did not cross the specified value as necessary to institute a suit before the Commercial Court.
10. In these facts, the Appellant has preferred the said appeal.
COURT’S FINDINGS
11. Learned counsel for the Appellant states that after the District Judge had concluded that the suit was undervalued, it ought to have granted an opportunity to the Appellant to amend the
